AU in conversation with: Kei Hannah Brodersen
How did you get to where you are now?
“I studied law and political sciences in Germany and did a master’s in the Netherlands. Before starting my PhD research, I went to France and worked at the Council of Europe for a year, then I decided to come back to the Netherlands and started my PhD. That took 6 years, and at the moment I am working in Switzerland on matters related to criminology and corruption.”
Can you tell us about your PhD research?
“My PhD research focused on the impacts of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) on the rule of law in Bosnia & Herzegovina and Serbia. I assessed how the existence and operation of the ICTY influenced the functioning of the countries’ domestic criminal justice systems.
As far as my main findings are concerned: the ICTY triggered domestic war crimes proceedings, which contributed to the fight against impunity at the national level. It also influenced domestic substantive criminal law, and arguably even domestic procedural law, as domestic courts took example of what the ICTY did. In a way this led to more effective and efficient domestic war crime proceedings, but also general criminal proceedings, as some of the innovations were taken over in other criminal cases. The ICTY also triggered what I call a “modernization of the criminal justice system”, as it introduced at the domestic level modern tools such as software for case management or digital devices for witness testimonies and protections.
Also, some say that at least in Bosnia & Herzegovina, the ICTY contributed to better reparations for victims within criminal proceedings, as instead of being referred to civil proceedings – where they would lose protection and incur expenses – victims of convicted perpetrators were able to use systems within the criminal proceedings to get reparations.”
Why did you decide to write on this topic?
“When I started my research, the ICTY had been operating for just a bit more than 20 years, so it was a good moment to make an assessment and examination of what the effects of the tribunal were, at least in the short term. I think it is important to know what the effects of international criminal tribunals are, as these findings should influence decisions as to whether tribunals of the sort should be established in the future. There is a lot of discussion about the operation and case law of tribunals on a global level, but few people are aware of their domestic effects. With my research I showed there is great potential for international criminal tribunals, especially to boost domestic criminal justice systems.”
Can you tell us a bit about your work related to gender-based violence?
“Within the context of my PhD – when I was assessing the effects of the ICTY on substantive criminal law, I focused on sexual violence crimes. For instance, I researched how the criminal code, but also the practice at the domestic court, was influenced by the jurisprudence of the ICTY, and I found clear causation in those cases. For instance, in Bosnia & Herzegovina, they abolished the requirements that a threat of violence needs to be present in order to make out the elements of rape, which was a clear example of ICTY influence on domestic substantive criminal law.
In my other capacity as a lecturer, I also taught a few courses on sexual violence crimes in international criminal law in Germany.”
What do you think are the current challenges for international law?
“I think the biggest challenge for international law is skepticism. Right now, individuals and States are skeptical of international solutions, especially in the context of international criminal law. The reputation of the International Criminal Court, for example, is suffering greatly. Countries have moved towards hybrid or national solutions for mass atrocity crimes, but I think international solutions are really important in the fight against impunity, so I think the skepticism towards the role of international law is its biggest challenge.”
Is law the same as justice?
“No, it is not the same. Law can unfortunately be unjust, and justice can be unlawful. Ideally law should always play a role in achieving justice. Law is a good tool to do so, but when it is misused, injustice is an inevitable consequence.”
Why do you do what you do?
“I’m quite convinced of the purpose of international criminal law and international criminal adjudication, as I think it is a necessary tool to address war crimes and mass atrocities. I want to help in making international criminal law a better tool for these purposes.”
Hannah’s book recommendation: ‘The Butcher’s Trial: How the Search for Balkan War Criminals Became the World’s Most Successful Manhunt’ by Julian Borger